22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T518,On January 30, 2003, we filed, pursuant to Rule 12.2 of the Idaho Appellate Rules, an order tendering certification of a question of law to the Idaho Supreme Court. Harrigfeld v. Hancock, 317 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.2003). In so doing, we requested the Idaho Supreme Court to exercise its discretion in favor of accepting certification, which that court did on March 21, 2003. The legal question certified and accepted was as follows: On February 27, 2004, we received from the Clerk of the Court a certified copy of the Remittitur finalizing the Supreme Court’s opinion issued on January 29, 2004. The court unanimously held as follows: Harrigfeld v. Hancock, S.Ct. No. 29445, 2004 slip op. No. 3 at 7, — Idaho -, — P.3d -, 2004 WL 169817 (Idaho Jan. 29, 2004). After receipt of the Idaho Supreme Court’s answer to our certified question, we asked the parties to submit letter briefs containing their respective views of the effect of the Court’s holding, and we received in return a gracious concession from counsel for the Hárrigfelds that under Idaho law, the plaintiffs lack standing to sue this defendant for malpractice. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment against the plaintiffs and dismissing their complaint in its entirety. AFFIRMED.24:T538,

On January 30, 2003, we filed, pursuant to Rule 12.2 of the Idaho Appellate Rules, an order tendering certification of a question of law to the Idaho Supreme Court. Harrigfeld v. Hancock, 317 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.2003). In so doing, we requested the Idaho Supreme Court to exercise its discretion in favor of accepting certification, which that court did on March 21, 2003. The legal question certified and accepted was as follows:

On February 27, 2004, we received from the Clerk of the Court a certified copy of the Remittitur finalizing the Supreme Court’s opinion issued on January 29, 2004. The court unanimously held as follows:

Harrigfeld v. Hancock, S.Ct. No. 29445, 2004 slip op. No. 3 at 7, — Idaho -, — P.3d -, 2004 WL 169817 (Idaho Jan. 29, 2004).

After receipt of the Idaho Supreme Court’s answer to our certified question, we asked the parties to submit letter briefs containing their respective views of the effect of the Court’s holding, and we received in return a gracious concession from counsel for the Hárrigfelds that under Idaho law, the plaintiffs lack standing to sue this defendant for malpractice.

Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment against the plaintiffs and dismissing their complaint in its entirety.

AFFIRMED.